Judge John G. Baker
Signs of dissent in retention vote
October 24, 2012
Dave StaffordJustice Steven David's Barnes opinion finding no right to resist unlawful police entry results in an unusual
ouster effort on an otherwise quiet appellate judicial ballot.
MoreMarion County small claims under review
March 14, 2012
Michael HoskinsA two-judge task force looking into the operation of Marion County’s small claims courts has listened to complaints
from the public about inconvenience and confusion with the current system and will consider if any changes are needed.
MoreSmall Claims task force meetings begin Wednesday
February 20, 2012
IL StaffThe newly created task force formed by the Indiana Supreme Court to look into the practices and procedures used in Marion
County Small Claims courts will hold its first of three hearings Wednesday.
MoreTask force will examine Marion County's small claims courts
February 14, 2012
Michael HoskinsA new task force will review the practices and procedures of the nine small claims courts within the state’s largest
county, following critical reports last year suggesting litigants may not receive the same access to justice in each court
or as parties have in other Indiana jurisdictions.
MoreCOA: woman not denied right to confrontation
September 26, 2011
Jennifer NelsonIn a woman’s appeal of her prostitution conviction, the Indiana Court of Appeals addressed the right to confront witnesses
and its interrelationship with hearsay evidence.
MoreJudges disagree on whether use of names or initials is appropriate
September 14, 2011
Michael HoskinsA clear divide exists at the Indiana Court of Appeals these days and is anything but confidential. Judges are debating whether
parties’ names on certain cases should be released publicly or be shielded through use of initials only.
MoreCOA: Names in workforce development cases aren't confidential
August 12, 2011
Michael HoskinsFrom now on, the Indiana Court of Appeals will publish full names of parties on workforce development review board cases after
determining state statute doesn’t require those to be kept confidential in public court records.
MoreJudge: Man did not commit attempted child exploitation
July 18, 2011
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals split on whether a man committed attempted child exploitation when he tried to take pictures
up teenagers’ skirts at a mall using a camera attached to his shoe.
MoreAppellate court divided over trust liability
June 27, 2011
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals split Monday in a probate suit involving whether trustees failed to distribute a portion of the
trust corpus in a timely manner. The majority upheld finding the trustees liable, but ordered a re-evaluation of compensatory
damages and attorney fees.
MoreAppellate court to visit Wabash for arguments
April 28, 2011
IL StaffThe Indiana Court of Appeals travels to Wabash Friday to hear arguments in an insurance case.
MoreJudges disagree on whether landowners are 'aggrieved'
April 12, 2011
Michael HoskinsJurists on the Indiana Court of Appeals disagreed on an issue of first impression about what an “aggrieved” party
is when it comes to filing a mandate or injunction against a water conservancy district under state statute.
MoreAppeal questions 'enrollment,' self-supporting standards for emancipation
March 18, 2011
Michael HoskinsIn tackling a child support case involving a teenager’s emancipation, Indiana Court of Appeals judges disagree on what
state statute defines as “enrolled” in college. One judge believes the majority wrongly reweighed evidence in
this case to come to its decision.
MoreJudges affirm insurer has no duty to defend
March 14, 2011
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that a homeowner’s insurance policy is clear that the ingestion
of methadone by a guest at his house and his subsequent injuries are excluded from the policy’s liability coverage.
MoreJudges find enhancement doesn't violate double jeopardy principles
January 11, 2011
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals tackled an issue of first impression in a case involving double jeopardy principles. A defendant’s
sentence was enhanced under the Firearm Enhancement Statute following a conviction for reckless homicide.
MoreJudge Margret Robb to lead Indiana Court of Appeals
January 5, 2011
Michael HoskinsThough she’s been on the appellate bench for 12 years, Judge Margret Robb is now adding a new distinction to her judicial
title.
MoreEnd of a family legacy
January 5, 2011
Michael HoskinsFor the first time since the mid 1950s, the Indiana Judges Association won’t have anyone in the Baker family sitting
on the board of managers and being as intimately involved in the group’s activities as they have been for two-thirds
of the group’s existence.
MoreSponsored by
on Facebook & Twitter
on Facebook & Twitter
Indiana Lawyer on Facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
The court of appeals not only tries to rewrite or interpret the law to suit their fancy, now they choose play stupid as well. Every consideration must be given to pro se litigants, who are not held to the same standards as attorneys, as stated by,SCOTUS. I assume they didn't have a lawyer, since one wasn't mentioned and I strongly suggest thatb the rest of the, origional petitioners get back in there and fight for their rights.
the irony of situations like this is that the clients whom conour cheated are the ones who should be pulling hardest for him to remain free and keep his law license, so they have some hopes of him paying back. really bury the guy deep and then there will be little hope of restitution
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.